away with him and the law of God forbid the sending her back.

My friend must now consent to wait for my Bible argument, seeing I have given him a taste of it just by way of spice.

But he meets my argument showing that the principles of abolitionism have abolished slavery, by declaring that British emancipation was not immediate abolition, nor its authors modern abolitionists. So in his printed lectures, he tells us that," Wilberforce, Clarkson and others, were far from being abolitionists in the modern sense."-Rice's Lectures, p. 67. His design is to prove that West India emancipation was not a triumph of the principle that immediate emancipation is a duty, and slave-holding a sin. I beg you will remember his printed statement that Clarkson and company were not abolitionists in the modern sense, for I wish to test this statement by facts. You will mark that the point between us is, whether the principles of abolitionists have, as he says, abolished slavery nowhere on earth;" or "everywhere," where it has perished without bloodshed, as I say.

6.

Let us now see whether the authors of the West Indian emancipation of August, 1834; were "far from being abolitionists in the modern sense.'

I hold in my hand an "Essay on Slavery, by Thomas Clarkson" who is still living, and well known on both sides of the Atlantic, to be, so far as one man can be, the very life and heart's blood of the English abolition movement. And where think you, was this book printed, when, and by whom? It was published in 1816, at Georgetown, Kentucky, by the Rev. David Barrow. So the doctrines of Clarkson, which I will read, were once popular in Kentucky, before the gold of her piety became dim, and her fine gold changed. Surely some must have favored his views to warrant the publication there of his book.

Now what are Clarkson's doctrines on slavery, laid down in this book, the writing of which led him, then a university

student, to resolve on devoting his life to the cause of humanity against slavery?

Before reading, I must remark that I never said, as brother R. stated, that the pamphlet called Immediate not gradual Abolition" changed the principles of English abolitionists, but that it contributed to change their mode of operationto produce a new application of their principles. Clarkson's principles were the principles of British abolition. This essay was written when he was a young man. He has now labored, as his last letter in my desk shows, more than fiftynine years, exclusively in this cause. He was the means of bringing to its aid the talents of Wilberforce, Pitt and Fox, and of organizing the committee of which Granville Sharp was chairman and Macauley an active member. He was, as I said, the soul of the English anti-slavery movement; and this essay, which he wrote at the instance of Dr. Peckard, and which gained the prize at Cambridge University, sixty-five years ago; was his first essay on the subject, and has been the chart of his principles ever since, and of those of the English abolitionists;—and this is the summing up of his doctrines on the last page at the end of the book;

"But this is sufficient. For if liberty is only an advantitious right; if men are by no means superior to brutes; if every social duty is a curse; if cruelty is highly to be esteemed if murder is strictly honorable; and Christianity is a lie; then it is evident that African slavery may be pursued without either remorse of conscience or the imputation of a crime. But if the contrary of this is true, which reason must immediately evince, it is evident that no custom established among men was ever more impious; since it is contrary to reason, justice, nature, the principles of law and government, the whole doctrine, in short, of natural religion, and the revealed voice of God."-Clarkson's Essay. Kentucky Ed. p. 175.

That was Clarkson's doctrine sixty-nine ago; and it was the doctrine which has wrought out the English abolition. What then becomes of Dr. Chalmers, and his declaration

that ours is a new dogma? What of Dr. Rice and his published assertion that Clarkson is "far from being an abolitionist in the modern sense?"

My brother, anxious to prove that abolitionists hold horrible doctrines, refers again to the book of Rev. James Duncan, and not to the book only but to the man, who, he says, was as crazy as Foster."

66

MR. RICE explained. That is a mistake. I said that Foster was not a whit more crazy than Duncan.

MR. BLANCHARD. I accept the correction. He did not say that "Duncan was as crazy as Foster;" but that "Foster was not more crazy than Duncan." [A laugh.]

Now what is his chief accusation against this pious missionary and man of God, whose life was devoted to preaching Christ in the early log cabins of Kentucky, Ohio, Indidiana and Illinois; and who died on a missionary tour? The head and front of Duncan's offending in his book is, that he teaches that "slaves have a right to resist their enslavement by force."

Now, in respect to this doctrine, though we, as abolitionists, do not undertake to disprove the right of force, commonly called the right of revolution; yet, we do not give such advice to the slaves, but the contrary. We tell them, as Paul told the Christian slaves of heathen masters, to submit cheerfully and patiently to their condition, but if they be made free to "use it rather."

may

To

"Wait for the dawning of a brighter day,

"And snap the bond the moment when they may."

We have other motives beside our principles, in teaching slaves to endure their burdens, though heavy-never to rise in warfare, but to wait. Many of our parents, sons, brothers, sisters and other relatives, live in the South. Many have gone down and married plantations of slaves, particularly ministers' sons, and we do not wish to have these killed in a general massacre. We are moralists, and we leave politicians to regulate questions of force.

by SON LA Met Avoger and 2 at siljen i vilDEL Bill and marget c Lace mats f on had bever offended. rozví you more att Wm i yn wit

JA 126 &* retut is a sofe conscience? And wood you DI DE SIS pred if your renabre should be semed relice! By te kruer premiate you muss ENG JA

* 2 with the myeschet Adriane Tuy bar & El ruit your proceedings. Tuy can rerist them, små po ay cannot se justly termed rebesical You have no mat wish even the hair of their heads without their own E It is not your money that can invest you with a nigh Himan very can neither be bought nor sold. Every sh you give them is unjust It is a lach against nature and religion, and will surely stand recorded against you, simre they are all, with respect to your impious seives, in a state of nature; in a state of original dissociation, perfectly free." -Clarkson's Erray, Ky. Ed., p. 166.

This book is of Kentucky manufacture, published at Georgetown, by Rev. David Barrow, in 1816, and must have found some circulation there to pay the printer. I hope my friend will not blame me for quoting Kentucky doctrines from Kentucky books.

For myself, I am a minister of the peaceful gospel of the Prince of Peace. Though not strictly a non-resistant, I would say to every slave,

"Tis better, to bear the ills we have, "Than fly to others which we know not of."

But

my friend may

take it into his head that these senti

ments of Clarkson were errors of his youth, and that he had changed his opinions before the first of August Abolition of 1834. Let us see.

Here is a work of Clarkson, published by Johnston & Barrett, LONDON, 1841. Let us read and see if fifty-nine years service in the cause of the slave, has not softened down and changed the sentiments of this venerable patriarch and apostle of human liberty. It is a Letter to the clergy of the various denominations, and to the planters in the southern parts of the United States of America." This is to the clergy:

66

"I fear, gentlemen, that this is the case with you, that you have become gradually more hardened, and that you are not the men you once were. Indeed, I have been informed that you make no scruple to declare, both in public and private, and even in your pulpits, that the practice of slavery is no sin. But if you cannot see sin in the monstrous oppression of your fellow creatures which is going on daily before your eyes, I do not see where sin is to be found at all, or that you can impute it to any actions of men, however gross or injurious. Perhaps your ideas of sin may be different from mine. My notion of sin is that it is a “transgression of the law of God." * *** Do you agree with me in the representations now made to you? Do you allow that any one transgression of the divine commandments,. which are solely of a moral nature, is sin? If you do, I shall have no difficulty of proving to you, that slavery is a sin of the deepest dye."—Clarkson's letter to clergy, p. 8.

Mr. Rice distinguishes between slavery and slave-holding. But when Clarkson says that "slavery is sin," he means that slave-holding is sin. Thus, on page 15, of this letter:

"I come to a very serious and awful part of the subject; that is, I am to prove to you that you are guilty of sin in holding them in bondage, or that slavery is sin in the sight of God, of the deepest dye."

And again on page 22: "It is sin in its root, sin in its branches, and sin in its fruit. And yet, living where all